#PHOTOSYNC PRICING ARCHIVE#
#PHOTOSYNC PRICING FREE#

From there I import them into a Lightroom catalog (looking at DigiKam though) and move the photos to a ZFS dataset that has auto snapshots enabled (accidental deletions, malware protection, etc) and is on a RAIDZ2 pool (survives two drive failures).ДЇrom there RClone encrypts and copies them to AWS Glacier Deep Archive (11 9s, etc). The phone also backs up to Google Photos (Pixel phone). I use Syncthing to copy from my phone to my ZFS NAS. For my case, I only have a few photos worthy of putting into a 120-year photo album for my descendants, because I'm just an ordinary person. Now, when the noise is multiplied, selecting is much harder than before. The problem is the separation of the archival-worthy content from the info noise. >Now it's easier and cheaper to store media than ever before Admittedly, any media depends on content refreshing, but the traditional media has much longer life between transfers - for an extreme example we still can read Sumerian clay tablets. (and who knows what else it will be many years into future) Digital media is not static by nature. You depend on other people and on the assumption that business and legal frameworks will remain the same throughout the archival period.Дigital tech heavily depends on an unbroken chain of content transfer, which is a pretty big assumption for archival-grade storage, considering that companies, encodings and formats come and go, and there are also things like censorship and AI 'enhancement' to worry about. Online storage is much more complex and thus inherently volatile. Are you sure your descendants will have the means to read that M-Disc in the year 2140? How about the file system on it? JPEG or DNG format? With a printed photo, you don't have to be sure. Let's assume it even survived 120 years with its data intact. What can you realistically do to keep the digital photo through 120 years or more? Imagine you stored it on the most durable media you have, M-Disc perhaps, or whatever they advertise today. >That's because digital storage didn't exist then. In fact, I have that photo reproduced in another album of my relatives. Nothing stops you from having redundancy in printed media.

#PHOTOSYNC PRICING FREE#

Usenet history is disappearing, even though it doesn't take a lot of space - because it isn't in anyone's economic interest to keep it - and the same will happen to free cloud storage sooner or later. I have a couple of 20-year-old hard drives that are still mostly readable (12 bad sectors so far), and that's considered a miracle. Print media has two main advantages: It requires no equipment/software/license/electricity to use and treated properly, it has been shown to last hundreds of years. Right now it seems JPEGs will be usable forever, and that may be But cultural artificats - games and videos - are already becoming hard to preserve People only care about convenience, and I suspect a popular 3D-or-lightfield-or-something-format in the future will be similarly hard to preserve 20 years later. You might believe we've learned a lesson since then, but I don't.ДRM formats are creeping into everything. A digitized history project in the UK made this assumption, and later worked really hard to get back at the data, is a long description, the Wikipedia entry on the BBC Domesday book doesn't go into all the details. It may seem that way, but it's not as simple. Now it's easier and cheaper to store media than ever before > That's because digital storage didn't exist then. I haven't found any other services and am beginning to believe I have a weird and different needs than most. I need the ability to share photos with an expansive network of families/relatives on different platforms such as Android, Windows, Mac, Linux. So far, NextCloud seems to be the best bet with PhotoSync keeping a local/cloud backup. It does not say anywhere that this is open source and I can host it myself, plugged in with a storage such as AWS S3 or Wasabi or any other cloud that I can backup/store etc. Stingle is costlier than Apple or Google's plan. The Google Photos is more because Apple has no correct implementation of sharing/collaborating between the family members. I back it up with Google One's 2TB family plan where we have a common family photos (wife, and I)and my 11-year old daughter learning to shoot. I use Apple's iCloud with a 2TB plan as my primary. I'm not a serious photographer but I love it enough to shoot enough.

Photosync pricing